Your Universal Remote Control Center
RemoteCentral.com
Blu-ray & DVD Forum - View Post
Previous section Next section Previous page Next page Up level
Up level
The following page was printed from RemoteCentral.com:

Login:
Pass:
 
 

Page 3 of 6
Topic:
HD DVD or BLU RAY?
This thread has 77 replies. Displaying posts 31 through 45.
Post 31 made on Thursday November 8, 2007 at 13:38
Stealth X
Senior Member
Joined:
Posts:
November 2005
1,177
On November 8, 2007 at 11:55, cpchillin said...
Anthony if you think that Transformers was bad

i didnt even bother following the link provided by the person you mentioned, but i just have to say Transformers is one of the sharpest movies i've seen, it surprises me s/one is complaining about the PQ or sound, as IMO both were excellent.
Post 32 made on Thursday November 8, 2007 at 21:46
Rich_Guy
Advanced Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2006
978
On November 8, 2007 at 11:55, cpchillin said...

As for
the audio comment that Blu-Ray has more lossless audio
who cares? Seriously the VAST majority of consumers give
a damn about that! If they did they wouldn't be using
their iPod with an FM modulator for their daily commute.

I care very much about getting the best picture and best audio. The better sound was very much a part of my decision toward Blu-ray.

I download all my music lossless and it is CD quality from my computer. Guess I am one of the minority that appreciates quality sound.
Post 33 made on Saturday November 10, 2007 at 13:41
Anthony
Ultimate Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2001
28,894
Anthony if you think that Transformers was bad

not me, the producer thought it was not what it could be. I am guessing as the director he must have had access to the actual film and unlike you (where we don't know if you have even seen the HD DVD or the movie) must be giving an informed opinion

then you really should check out Fifth Element on Blu-Ray! The SD DVD version looked and sounded better then the Blu-Ray version.

I am sure you did no see it and like most HD DVD supporters mindlessly parroting something dumb you read somewhere. Or else you would know how idiotic this makes you sound. It looked and sounded much better then the superbit DVD (let alone the normal DVD) what makes your post even more retarded is that TFE had PCM, so it had lossless audio, so you can not get better then that. Also it is funny that you needed to go back to a movie that came out over a year ago (actually one of the original titles available on day 1) to find something that is not acceptable. Even more, at least Sony was honest and intelligent enough to notice it was sub par and was willing to replaced it with a much better transfer from a much better master.




As for the audio comment that Blu-Ray has more lossless audio who cares? Seriously the VAST majority of consumers give a damn about that! If they did they wouldn't be using their iPod with an FM modulator for their daily commute.

most people are happy with a 20$ DVD players and a 2$ bad copy of a DVD, further more most people were happy with VHS, and I am sure many more DL way over compressed bittornt versions. I am guesssing someone buying an HD player and paying 30$ for HD versions of movies he already owned would be looking for something better.
...
Post 34 made on Sunday November 11, 2007 at 12:14
smokinghot
Super Member
Joined:
Posts:
August 2006
3,688
On November 10, 2007 at 13:41, Anthony said...
It looked and sounded much better then the superbit DVD
(let alone the normal DVD) what makes your post even more
retarded is that TFE had PCM, so it had lossless audio,
so you can not get better then that. Also it is funny
that you needed to go back to a movie that came out over
a year ago (actually one of the original titles available
on day 1) to find something that is not acceptable. Even
more, at least Sony was honest and intelligent enough
to notice it was sub par and was willing to replaced it
with a much better transfer from a much better master.

Quoted only for sake of posterity. The first time I have ever heard a negative comment about Bluray from Anthony.

wow... HD-DVD it is...

;)
....Light travels faster than sound. That's why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
Post 35 made on Sunday November 11, 2007 at 23:37
Anthony
Ultimate Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2001
28,894
The first time I have ever heard a negative comment about Bluray from Anthony.

well my posts are always about the facts, not my fault if there is a lot more negative stuff to say about HD DVD :)also it does not help when there is so much misinformation posted by some HD DVD supporters on this site.
...
Post 36 made on Monday November 12, 2007 at 07:18
bookaroni
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
December 2004
458
On November 11, 2007 at 23:37, Anthony said...
well my posts are always about the facts, not my fault
if there is a lot more negative stuff to say about HD
DVD :)also it does not help when there is so much misinformation
posted by some HD DVD supporters on this site.

Your posts are rarely about facts.
Most of the negative stuff about HD DVD comes from you. And most of it is untrue.
And most of your posts are hostile. Try posting and engaging in a civil discussion instead of name calling. Maybe then someone will take you seriously. Maybe.
Post 37 made on Monday November 12, 2007 at 08:27
bookaroni
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
December 2004
458
On November 10, 2007 at 13:41, Anthony said...
not me, the producer thought it was not what it could
be. I am guessing as the director he must have had access
to the actual film and unlike you (where we don't know
if you have even seen the HD DVD or the movie) must be
giving an informed opinion

I am sure you did no see it and like most HD DVD supporters
mindlessly parroting something dumb you read somewhere.
Or else you would know how idiotic this makes you sound.
It looked and sounded much better then the superbit DVD
(let alone the normal DVD) what makes your post even more
retarded is that TFE had PCM, so it had lossless audio,
so you can not get better then that. Also it is funny
that you needed to go back to a movie that came out over
a year ago (actually one of the original titles available
on day 1) to find something that is not acceptable. Even
more, at least Sony was honest and intelligent enough
to notice it was sub par and was willing to replaced it
with a much better transfer from a much better master.

most people are happy with a 20$ DVD players and a 2$
bad copy of a DVD, further more most people were happy
with VHS, and I am sure many more DL way over compressed
bittornt versions. I am guesssing someone buying an HD
player and paying 30$ for HD versions of movies he already
owned would be looking for something better.

It is a well known fact that Fifth Element was a lousy transfer. Nobody needs to actually watch it to know that. It was all over the net within days of it's release. The Fifth Element exhibited obvious visual deficiencies due to weak source materials and poor digital compression encoding.
BD was designed with that extra storage space BECAUSE it originated as a recording tech before AVC (mpeg4) or VC-1 came along. It was designed for the space/bandwidth hog MPEG2. They also needed the extra storage for the bloated PCM codec.
Sony is all about collecting money for licensing produts, not paying money. They would have to pay licencing fees to use VC-1. Same goes for the PCM used on TFE. They would have to pay to use Dolby TrueHD.
THIS is the reason it came with the higher space/bandwidth in the spec. It NEEDED it for how they planned to do video & sound with it.
Fifth Element was cheap (licensing wise) to manufacture. But they paid dearly when they had to redo it.

To be completely fair about codecs I want to pull a quote from Joshua Zyber in an article he wrote called "Commentary: Specs vs. Reality:

"The truth of the matter is that all video compression codecs have the same purpose, to accurately represent the source using a fraction of the storage space. In the hands of a good operator, both VC-1 and AVC are more than capable of achieving this goal. Even the dated MPEG-2 codec has been known to deliver excellent results (owners of the now-defunct D-Theater tape format sure didn't seem to have any problem with it). There are plenty of examples of "reference quality" transfers using any of the above, from 'King Kong' (VC-1) to 'Final Fantasy' (AVC) to 'Kingdom of Heaven' (MPEG-2). In all cases, the skill of the compressionist and the quality of the work is more important than the codec used to get there."
I personally think PCM is a waste of disc space. Great sound no doubt. But is it necessary? Here is another quote from the same article on Transformers, which got a 5 star rating for AQ:
"I should mention at this point that at least one working Hollywood sound mixer has voiced his opinion that, when played back on his professional dubbing stage, well-mastered Dolby Digital Plus soundtracks encoded at the high 1509 kb/s bit rate that Paramount uses can be audibly transparent to the studio masters, when tested on movies that he mixed himself and would presumably know better than anyone else. But what use is the informed opinion of an expert in the field when it's easier to just point to the specs list on the back of a disc's packaging to make conclusive statements about matters of quality? In the forum on this site, a number of readers have made proclamations such as, "Compressed audio is just not acceptable these days" and "Whether you can tell the difference or not is irrelevant."

The disc's audio being indistinguishable from its studio master is "irrelevant"? Even with just a Dolby Digital Plus track, the 'Transformers' disc rated the highest score for audio quality that we can give. What more could we demand from it? It's absolutely terrific, but it's just not absolutely terrific enough if the packaging doesn't have a listing for TrueHD or PCM, even when it's likely impossible for human ears to tell the difference? What kind of argument is that?"

Blu-Ray fans were screaming that Transformers was no good due to not having a Dolby TrueHD soundtrack. Well, scream away. I know it sounds and looks awesome on my Toshiba HD DVD player and Pioneer plasma.
Post 38 made on Monday November 12, 2007 at 09:57
bookaroni
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
December 2004
458
Most of the posters here engage in civil discussions. One does not.
Anyone want to bet I get called names for my last post?
Post 39 made on Monday November 12, 2007 at 11:21
cpchillin
Select Member
Joined:
Posts:
September 2007
2,239
Anthony I've seen more movies in Blu-ray then HD DVD! I am not a fan boy, unlike you, of either format. I watched TFE within a week of Blu-ray coming out. It was VERY noticeable that it just wasn't right, AS EVERYONE NOTICED! I've watched the original SD DVD version side-by-side the Blu-ray version and the SD DVD version looked better, the SD DVD version was playing on a Toshiba HDXA2. It took Sony how long to come out and say they screwed up? They still haven't admitted to screwing up MiniDisk.

I haven't seen Transformers at all so I'm not sure what it was. Did you read the USA Today article at all? Michael Bay says that the DVD could've been better not the HD DVD. He then went on to say that he's displeased with the format war because it's causing people to wait longer to adopt HD. If you'd like I could always find some Beta propaganda for us to "discuss".
Who says you can't put 61" plasmas up on cantilever mounts using toggle bolts? <---Thanks Ernie ;)
Post 40 made on Tuesday November 13, 2007 at 00:29
Anthony
Ultimate Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2001
28,894
Your posts are rarely about facts.

no, that is you
Most of the negative stuff about HD DVD comes from you.

no, most of the facts come from me, if they are negative to HD DVD I cannot help that. It just has so little to offer
And most of it is untrue.

show me one thing I posted that is untrue. I can show many of your statements to be untrue
It is a well known fact that Fifth Element was a lousy transfer. Nobody needs to actually watch it to know that

and it was a well known fact that the earth is flat. Just because many believe something does not make it true. I am not defending TFE it was a bad transfer of a bad master, I said that in my previous post but no where near as bad as HD DVD fanboys make it sound and Sony did decide to replace it for free for anyone that bought it. The worst part about this TFE comments from people like you is that there are a few Universal titles that are far worst then it and for some reason you don't seem concerned about it.

BD was designed with that extra storage space BECAUSE it originated as a recording tech before AVC (mpeg4) or VC-1 came along. It was designed for the space/bandwidth hog MPEG2. They also needed the extra storage for the bloated PCM codec.

not at all. first none of those recorders were 1.5x (54mbps) or 50GB (only 25). All the extras are there because distributed movies need them (such as having extras -some in movie so they can't be on a second disk-or multiple audio tracks). The problem with HD DVD is that Toshiba had a patent for .6mm disks and decided to build a format while sticking with that limiting factor.

Sony is all about collecting money for licensing produts,

I thought that was why Toshiba is pushing HD DVD


They would have to pay licencing fees to use VC-1. Same goes for the PCM used on TFE. They would have to pay to use Dolby TrueHD.

well the new version of TFE has DTHD :) you see when I say I bring the facts and you bring the ignorance. Many Sony titles have DTHD on them, some more then one DTHD track. They have used every kind of loss less (PCM, DTS-HD and DTHD). As for VC-1 it is inferior then AVC which is what most studios use, even Paramount which experiment with AVC on BD and was using VC-1 on HD DVD has used AVC on the last few titles (my opinion is that they had an agreement with MS that has ended and decided to go with the better codec)

I personally think PCM is a waste of disc space. Great sound no doubt. But is it necessary? Here is another quote from the same article on Transformers, which got a 5 star rating for AQ:

yes but we all know what your opinion is worth. I don't ask for PCM (even though there are many reasons to do so) DTHD or DTS-HD MA is good enough for me. The reason is even though there is documented proof of a difference (at least for DTHD where there is enough to compare) and any time sensitive decoding can have decompression issues, the savings tend to be worth it. But basically you have a two bit reviewer trying to justify his exaggerated scores.






...
Post 41 made on Tuesday November 13, 2007 at 00:40
Anthony
Ultimate Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2001
28,894
I am not a fan boy, unlike you

so why are your posts nothing but lies?

you say

I watched TFE within a week of Blu-ray coming out

which would mean June/July 2006

and then

I've watched the original SD DVD version side-by-side the Blu-ray version and the SD DVD version looked better, the SD DVD version was playing on a Toshiba HDXA2

how did you compare the BD to the DVD in July with the DVD on the HDXA2 when the HDXA2 wasn't arond back then and only came out this year

They still haven't admitted to screwing up MiniDisk.

what does minidisk have to do with anything?
...
Post 42 made on Tuesday November 13, 2007 at 08:45
bookaroni
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
December 2004
458
Let's start with the thread where you lied about DTS-HD Master Audio:
[Link: remotecentral.com]
Post 43 made on Tuesday November 13, 2007 at 08:57
bookaroni
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
December 2004
458
More Blu-Ray news:
Lionsgate has unveiled complete specs for its January Blu-ray release of 'War,' promising a battalion of exclusive content, including the studio's first-ever Profile 1.1-compliant picture-in-picture video commentary. And late last month, Fox confirmed plans to issue 'Sunshine' as its first Profile 1.1-compatible Blu-ray title on January 8.
The problem for Blu-Ray owners is there isn't a player capable of playing these features. Maybe by the time the movies are released there will be. But all previous standalone Blu-Ray players will be useless for accessing these features.
And this from Howard Stringer, CEO of Sony said he wished he had a time machine to go back and cooperate with competitor HD DVD.
The full article is here:
[Link: tinyurl.com]
Sony is no longer saying the war is over. It made them look like fools every time they did.
Post 44 made on Tuesday November 13, 2007 at 09:34
Daniel Tonks
Wrangler of Remotes
Joined:
Posts:
October 1998
28,782
I hate sensationalist journalism.
Post 45 made on Tuesday November 13, 2007 at 23:02
Anthony
Ultimate Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2001
28,894
Let's start with the thread where you lied about DTS-HD Master Audio:

lol, you were the one that said there were nop titles that used it (and then admitted you were wrong when you realized every Fox title has it as well as some from other studios on both formats)
and I also pointed you to a player. So can you tell me where I posted anything but facts to your constant nonsense?
...
Find in this thread:
Page 3 of 6


Jump to


Protected Feature Before you can reply to a message...
You must first register for a Remote Central user account - it's fast and free! Or, if you already have an account, please login now.

Please read the following: Unsolicited commercial advertisements are absolutely not permitted on this forum. Other private buy & sell messages should be posted to our Marketplace. For information on how to advertise your service or product click here. Remote Central reserves the right to remove or modify any post that is deemed inappropriate.

Hosting Services by ipHouse